en-usCases of Interest FeedThe latest wiki entries from CasesOfInterest.comhttp://casesofinterest.com/tiki/styles/kubrick/newlogo.jpgFeed logohttp://casesofinterest.com/tiki/
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 22:36:11 +0000Zend_Feed_Writer 1.12.3 (http://framework.zend.com)http://casesofinterest.com/tiki/
risch@law.villanova.edurisch@law.villanova.eduPatent Law Spring 2016Sun, 15 Apr 2018 14:51:43 +0000http://casesofinterest.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Patent+Law+Spring+2016
http://casesofinterest.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Patent+Law+Spring+2016Patent Law Spring 2017Sun, 15 Apr 2018 14:45:04 +0000http://casesofinterest.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Patent+Law+Spring+2017
http://casesofinterest.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Patent+Law+Spring+2017AM v. Napster- Napster, Inc. was the owner of a computer program that allowed users to share music files over the internet. A&amp;M records, Inc. along with several other major record companies brought this action to prohibit Napster from allowing users to share copyrighted works through this program. The issue in this case is whether a preliminary injunction against Napsters peer-to-peer file sharing service (which required takedowns upon some notice of infringing content) should be upheld.<br />

+ Napster, Inc. was the owner of a computer program that allowed users to share music files over the internet. A&amp;M records, Inc. along with several other major record companies brought this action to prohibit Napster from allowing users to share copyrighted works through this program. The issue in this case is whether a preliminary injunction against Napsters peer-to-peer file sharing service (which required takedowns upon some notice of infringing content) should be upheld.<br />

- The standard format for digital music format is MP3 file. An MP3 is a compressed file, as opposed to a file found on a traditional CD which is larger. The smaller MP3 format allows for fast transmission of the file between computers via the internet. Napsters program facilitates MP3 transmission between users through peer-to-peer (or computer to computer) file sharing. The program works by:<br />

+ The standard format for digital music format is MP3 file. An MP3 is a compressed file, as opposed to a file found on a traditional CD which is larger. The smaller MP3 format allows for fast transmission of the file between computers via the internet. Napsters program facilitates MP3 transmission between users through peer-to-peer (or computer to computer) file sharing. The program works by:<br />

- Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct infringement: First, they must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material. Second, they must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. 106.<br />

+ Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct infringement: First, they must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material. Second, they must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. 106.<br />

- Plaintiffs have also shown that Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders' exclusive rights. Specifically, they infringe the rights of reproduction and distribution. According to the court, Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights.<br />

+ Plaintiffs have also shown that Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders' exclusive rights. Specifically, they infringe the rights of reproduction and distribution. According to the court, Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights.<br />

- The court next asks if the use is immediately harmful to the market, or if it will become harmful upon widespread use. The court finds that it is harmful. The court looks at evidence in the record that Napsters use reduces CD sales among college students and raises barriers to entry into the market of digitally downloading music.<br />

+ The court next asks if the use is immediately harmful to the market, or if it will become harmful upon widespread use. The court finds that it is harmful. The court looks at evidence in the record that Napsters use reduces CD sales among college students and raises barriers to entry into the market of digitally downloading music.<br />

- After rejecting Napsters fair use claim, the court determines whether Napster is Liable Contributory Copyright infringement. The court asserts that, "one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer. Here, Napster engages in personal conduct that encourages or assists infringement because it has both actual and constructive knowledge of direct infringement (according to the record). Furthermore, Napster materially contributes to the infringing activity. Without its support, Napster users would not be able to find and download the music they wanted.<br />

+ After rejecting Napsters fair use claim, the court determines whether Napster is Liable Contributory Copyright infringement. The court asserts that, "one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer. Here, Napster engages in personal conduct that encourages or assists infringement because it has both actual and constructive knowledge of direct infringement (according to the record). Furthermore, Napster materially contributes to the infringing activity. Without its support, Napster users would not be able to find and download the music they wanted.<br />

]]>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:15:04 +0000http://casesofinterest.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=AM+v.+Napster
http://casesofinterest.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=AM+v.+NapsterDoe I and Doe II v Individuals whose true names are unknown- Plaintiffs Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II were Yale law students. They brought an action for defamatory, harassing, and threatening statements allegedly made on an AutoAdmit.com message board by unknown individuals using 39 pseudonyms. AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a> is a public internet discussion board used for postings about undergraduate, graduate, and law schools. The site draws up to 1 million visitors per month. Anyone who accesses the site through the webpage can view the message boards, and anyone who wishes to post or respond to a message may do so by registering under a real or assumed name. The message threads are searchable by key words through any internet search engine.<br />

+ Plaintiffs Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II were Yale law students. They brought an action for defamatory, harassing, and threatening statements allegedly made on an AutoAdmit.com message board by unknown individuals using 39 pseudonyms. AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a> is a public internet discussion board used for postings about undergraduate, graduate, and law schools. The site draws up to 1 million visitors per month. Anyone who accesses the site through the webpage can view the message boards, and anyone who wishes to post or respond to a message may do so by registering under a real or assumed name. The message threads are searchable by key words through any internet search engine.<br />

- On January 31, 2007, an anonymous user posted a message that linked to a picture of Doe II with a message encouraging others to rate her. The messages responding to this post contained inappropriate and sexually explicit comments. Some of these comments appeared to come from her fellow classmates. The harassing and defamatory comments continued through March of 2007, including one instance when Doe II and a Yale law school faculty member were contacted directly through e-mail about Doe IIs fathers alleged criminal history. AK47 made one of the posts at issue around this time falsely stating [], Stephen Reynolds, <a class="wiki" href="Doe II" rel="">Doe II</a>, and me: GAY LOVERS. In May 2007 an anonymous poster claimed he/she had sent Doe IIs future employer the defamatory messages. In June 2007, Doe I and Doe II filed this complaint, alleging libel, invasion of privacy, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and copyright violations. Doe II's complaint described the harm and results she experienced because of the comments about her on AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a>, including treatment for severe emotional distress, interference with her educational progress, reputational harm, and pecuniary harm.<br />

+ On January 31, 2007, an anonymous user posted a message that linked to a picture of Doe II with a message encouraging others to rate her. The messages responding to this post contained inappropriate and sexually explicit comments. Some of these comments appeared to come from her fellow classmates. The harassing and defamatory comments continued through March of 2007, including one instance when Doe II and a Yale law school faculty member were contacted directly through e-mail about Doe IIs fathers alleged criminal history. AK47 made one of the posts at issue around this time falsely stating [], Stephen Reynolds, <a class="wiki" href="Doe II" rel="">Doe II</a>, and me: GAY LOVERS. In May 2007 an anonymous poster claimed he/she had sent Doe IIs future employer the defamatory messages. In June 2007, Doe I and Doe II filed this complaint, alleging libel, invasion of privacy, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and copyright violations. Doe II's complaint described the harm and results she experienced because of the comments about her on AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a>, including treatment for severe emotional distress, interference with her educational progress, reputational harm, and pecuniary harm.<br />

- News of the lawsuit became a hot topic on the AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a> message board, with AK47 chiming in about the merits of the case and posting more defamatory comments wondering whether posters were allowed to use <a class="wiki" href="Doe II's" rel="">Doe II's</a> name in thread's anymore and the statement Women named Jill and Doe II should be raped. AK47 also started a thread entitled Inflicting emotional distress on cheerful girls named <a class="wiki" href="Doe II" rel="">Doe II</a>. Upon news of a subpoena, AK47 threatened to create a website tracking the litigation, including posting the real names of the girl and publicizing the allegations, unless he were dropped from the lawsuit.<br />

+ News of the lawsuit became a hot topic on the AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a> message board, with AK47 chiming in about the merits of the case and posting more defamatory comments wondering whether posters were allowed to use <a class="wiki" href="Doe II's" rel="">Doe II's</a> name in thread's anymore and the statement Women named Jill and Doe II should be raped. AK47 also started a thread entitled Inflicting emotional distress on cheerful girls named <a class="wiki" href="Doe II" rel="">Doe II</a>. Upon news of a subpoena, AK47 threatened to create a website tracking the litigation, including posting the real names of the girl and publicizing the allegations, unless he were dropped from the lawsuit.<br />

- Doe I and Doe II issued a subpoena duces tecum to SBC Internet Services (now AT&amp;T Internet Services) to identify the subscriber using a particular IP address. The anonymous postings at issue had come from the address under the pseudonym AK47. After being notified by AT&amp;T about the subpoena, the subscriber moved to quash it using the name John Doe 21. John Doe 21 also requested to proceed anonymously in the matter.<br />

+ Doe I and Doe II issued a subpoena duces tecum to SBC Internet Services (now AT&amp;T Internet Services) to identify the subscriber using a particular IP address. The anonymous postings at issue had come from the address under the pseudonym AK47. After being notified by AT&amp;T about the subpoena, the subscriber moved to quash it using the name John Doe 21. John Doe 21 also requested to proceed anonymously in the matter.<br />

- First, Doe IIs copyright claim is based on the fact that she owns registered copyrights in her photographs and they were posted without permission on AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a>. This claim is the only federal claim. The court addressed John Doe 21s argument that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the copyright claim was weak and manufactured, determining that it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction because it had original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the ... laws ... of the United States; 28 U.S.C. 1331; and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court determined that since it properly had jurisdiction over the copyright claim, which arose from the same case or controversy as the various state law tort and statutory claims, the Court also had subject matter jurisdiction as these state law claims, which arise from a common nucleus of operative fact namely, the alleged harassment of Doe I and Doe II on AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a>.<br />

+ First, Doe IIs copyright claim is based on the fact that she owns registered copyrights in her photographs and they were posted without permission on AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a>. This claim is the only federal claim. The court addressed John Doe 21s argument that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the copyright claim was weak and manufactured, determining that it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction because it had original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the ... laws ... of the United States; 28 U.S.C. 1331; and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court determined that since it properly had jurisdiction over the copyright claim, which arose from the same case or controversy as the various state law tort and statutory claims, the Court also had subject matter jurisdiction as these state law claims, which arise from a common nucleus of operative fact namely, the alleged harassment of Doe I and Doe II on AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a>.<br />

- John Doe 21 requested the court quash the subpoena because he claims disclosure of his identity would be a violation of his First Amendment right to engage in anonymous speech. The court said that the First Amendment generally protects anonymous speech, including speech on the internet. However, the court clarified that the right to speak anonymously, on the internet or otherwise, is not absolute and does not protect speech that otherwise would be unprotected. The court explained that while John Doe 21 does have a right to anonymous free speech, this right must also be balanced with an individuals need for discovery to redress wrongs. It applied a four-part balancing test in which courts should consider: (1) whether the plaintiff has undertaken efforts to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena and withheld action to afford the fictitiously named defendants a reasonable opportunity to file and serve opposition to the application; (2) whether the plaintiff has identified and set forth the exact statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster that the plaintiff alleges constitutes actionable speech, the specificity of the discovery request and whether there is an alternative means of obtaining the information called for in the subpoena, and whether there is a central need for the subpoenaed information to advance the plaintiffs' claims; (3) the subpoenaed party's expectation of privacy at the time the online material was posted; and (4) most importantly, whether the plaintiffs have made an adequate showing as to their claims against the anonymous defendant. For this element, the court adopted a standard that strikes the most appropriate balance between the First Amendment rights of the defendant and the interest in the plaintiffs of pursuing their claims, ensuring that the plaintiff is not merely seeking to harass or embarrass the speaker or stifle legitimate criticism, by holding that a plaintiff must make a concrete showing as to each element of a claim to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.<br />

+ John Doe 21 requested the court quash the subpoena because he claims disclosure of his identity would be a violation of his First Amendment right to engage in anonymous speech. The court said that the First Amendment generally protects anonymous speech, including speech on the internet. However, the court clarified that the right to speak anonymously, on the internet or otherwise, is not absolute and does not protect speech that otherwise would be unprotected. The court explained that while John Doe 21 does have a right to anonymous free speech, this right must also be balanced with an individuals need for discovery to redress wrongs. It applied a four-part balancing test in which courts should consider: (1) whether the plaintiff has undertaken efforts to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena and withheld action to afford the fictitiously named defendants a reasonable opportunity to file and serve opposition to the application; (2) whether the plaintiff has identified and set forth the exact statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster that the plaintiff alleges constitutes actionable speech, the specificity of the discovery request and whether there is an alternative means of obtaining the information called for in the subpoena, and whether there is a central need for the subpoenaed information to advance the plaintiffs' claims; (3) the subpoenaed party's expectation of privacy at the time the online material was posted; and (4) most importantly, whether the plaintiffs have made an adequate showing as to their claims against the anonymous defendant. For this element, the court adopted a standard that strikes the most appropriate balance between the First Amendment rights of the defendant and the interest in the plaintiffs of pursuing their claims, ensuring that the plaintiff is not merely seeking to harass or embarrass the speaker or stifle legitimate criticism, by holding that a plaintiff must make a concrete showing as to each element of a claim to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.<br />

- Here, the court determined that Doe II could meet the four factors because: (1) the notice of the subpoenas were posted on AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a> in January 2008, allowing plenty of time for responses; (2) Doe II identified specific statements made by AK47, sought only the information needed for the critical part of her case, and there was no other way to obtain the information; (3) John Doe 21s expectation of privacy was low, considering he agreed with AT&amp;Ts Privacy Policy which clearly states it would comply with court orders, subpoenas, or other legal or regulatory requirements.; and (4) Doe II could establish the elements to make a prima facie libel case against John Doe 21. The court therefore refused to quash the subpoena, finding that the balancing test tipped in the favor of plaintiffs interest in pursuing discovery and outweighed John Doe 21s First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the internet.<br />

+ Here, the court determined that Doe II could meet the four factors because: (1) the notice of the subpoenas were posted on AutoAdmit<a href="tiki-editpage.php?page=AutoAdmit" title="Create page: AutoAdmit" class="wiki wikinew">?</a> in January 2008, allowing plenty of time for responses; (2) Doe II identified specific statements made by AK47, sought only the information needed for the critical part of her case, and there was no other way to obtain the information; (3) John Doe 21s expectation of privacy was low, considering he agreed with AT&amp;Ts Privacy Policy which clearly states it would comply with court orders, subpoenas, or other legal or regulatory requirements.; and (4) Doe II could establish the elements to make a prima facie libel case against John Doe 21. The court therefore refused to quash the subpoena, finding that the balancing test tipped in the favor of plaintiffs interest in pursuing discovery and outweighed John Doe 21s First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the internet.<br />

- The court also addressed John Doe 21s request to proceed anonymously in the suit. The court said that generally, parties to a lawsuit must identify themselves. A party may proceed anonymously only after demonstrating a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. The court found that here John Doe 21s speculation that he could suffer ridicule or lose employment, even if true, would still only qualify as social stigma and not the special kinds of harm needed to proceed anonymously. The court therefore denied the motion to proceed anonymously.<br />

+ The court also addressed John Doe 21s request to proceed anonymously in the suit. The court said that generally, parties to a lawsuit must identify themselves. A party may proceed anonymously only after demonstrating a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. The court found that here John Doe 21s speculation that he could suffer ridicule or lose employment, even if true, would still only qualify as social stigma and not the special kinds of harm needed to proceed anonymously. The court therefore denied the motion to proceed anonymously.<br />